• Email : support@tahergrp.org

  • Kuwait Phone : (+965) 1803020

  • Egypt Phone : (+20) 2 274 86 300

News and Articles

The Court acquits a drawee despite signing two Cheques he issued

The Court acquits a drawee despite signing two Cheques he issued
The Court of Cassation acquitted a deputy a commissioner of himself and in his capacity of two cheques he issued to the appellant issued by him in return of chemical goods the appellant should have supplied him, but she did not.
The respondent in himself and in his capacity as the authorized agent of a construction and contracting corporation issued two cheques for the appellant under the contract, provided that the latter supplies chemical goods to the corporation equal to the value of the cheques. When he demanded that the she should fulfill her obligation to supply the goods agreed on, she abstained and went forward to cash the cheques which were found to be uncovered. Thus, the respondent filed a lawsuit to request the acquittal of himself as an agent of the Corporation, but the Court of First Instance refused as it is, and the respondent was not satisfied with the judgment. Then, the respondent He turned to lawyer Khaled Taher AlKhateeb in his office in Taher Law Firm Group. Alkhateeb appealed the judgment based on the fact that the reason for the cheques is not the same in nature as the cheques he issued for the chemical goods that the appellant undertook to supply to him and did not supply them, and that when he demanded that she should fulfill her obligations to supply the goods, she said she did and got what proves that the cheques were not covered from Gulf Bank. AlKhateeb said that the respondent did not receive the goods agreed upon by the appellant who did not fulfill her obligations despite signing him checks for the value of the goods. AlKhateeeb asked the Court to cancel the appellant judgment and sentence again to acquit the respondent and the Corporation owner from the Cheques. Then, The Court of Appeal responded to the Lawyer’s demands, and the appellant was not contented and she appealed for the violation of rule of law, the wrong application and the breach of the right of the defense.